Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Out of curiosity I checked some of GundamFan's sources and a few of them source the same crime prevention research center. That organization was founded by a gun's rights advocate who may have accepted funding from the NRA, and the site itself has a huge right-wing slant. Some of his work is also considered "junk science"

Couldn't the high suicide rate also be tied to the proscribed drugs? Or coming off of them? I have reason to believe that a friend of mine took his own life due to a chemical imbalance from his depression medications (I don't know if he was overdosed or underdosed, or had stopped taking them), but he was a former police officer.

Or possibly he took drugs because he was depressed, and he committed suicide because he was depressed. Correlation isn't causation.

Out of curiosity I checked some of GundamFan's sources and a few of them source the same crime prevention research center. That organization was founded by a gun's rights advocate who may have accepted funding from the NRA, and the site itself has a huge right-wing slant. Some of his work is also considered "junk science"

EDIT: Additionally many of his articles cited are opinion pieces. One of them is by Ben Shapiro, who worked for Breitbart for one.

Speculation, opinion, and conspiracy theory do not refute anything I posted.
Interesting that you failed to mention that I also used the LA Times (left-wing news source), New York Times (left-wing news source), Reason Magazine (Libertarin/centrist news site), the FBI (neutral source), the National Gang Intelligence Center (neutral source), the Washington Post (left-wing news source), Psychiatric News, CNN (left-wing news source), the DailyWire (that's not Breitbart, so please correct that), etc in my argument.
I stated earlier in this discussion that I use sources that wear their bias on their sleeve.

Using a wide-range of sources is called doing research (even if it is lay-research). I don't only read one side of the political spectrum's view on things. That's how somebody puts political blinders on and becomes a fanatic that sees only one perspective.
I'm sure you thought you had an "AH-HA! Blasphemer against gun control!" moment, but I'm afraid all you did was expose your own bias on this issue.

I checked out your link, funny how you accuse me of using bias sources and then use an article written by a far-leftist socialist as some type of refutation.

We have now reached the stage where we dismiss of arguments because of political stance. This thread has officially gone to hell.

I had a fairly lenghty post but whatever. Here's the short version.
We regulate cars but if we want to regulate guns instantly the outcry starts with the second amendment and non-compliance as if the former serves as an all-purpose weapon against any legislation and the latter justifies the argument.
Mental health and their prescribed drugs aren't a major cause for shooters. They are far more likely to be victims of violence rather than the other way. It's necessary to stop looking at mass shootings in a vacuum but at the problem of gun violence as a whole.
Criminal activity is higher in areas with a higher density of criminal organizations. Never would have guessed.
It would be nice if congress had a noble intention like that. As if. The only reason why our law makers are unable to decide on a meaningful legislation, fund research or even discuss the matter is because the NRA has an iron grip on republicans.
There is no reason for a civilian to have a paramilitary weapon and certainly not this amount.
The second amendment doesn't prevent sensitive gun legislation.

Quote:

Gun control fanatics don't want this because their goal is total disarmament of the US population

There is no reason for a civilian to have a paramilitary weapon and certainly not this amount.
The second amendment doesn't prevent sensitive gun legislation.

.

That right there tells me you have bought into the fanatics view on this issue.
Your link also doesn't deal with SSRIs and you seem to be just parroting the bullshit coming out of idiots like Joe Kennedy III.
So long as gun-prohibitionists continue to lie about this, push quackery, and continue to avoid the fact that nearly every mass shooter since 1960 has been on an SSRI, there will be no discussion. In fact, what will be pushed for by moderates like me is a need to reign in the bans, while at the same time bolster the background check system and get the cops to do their job. Numerous times now Law Enforcement has failed to act on tips, and probable cause with catastrophic results.
The gun-free-for-all types will not get their silencers, and other nonsense either so you can take comfort in that fact (many moderates are for making bump-stocks and drums Title-II items, but now outlawing them).

The Founders of this country did in fact want us to have military arms.

George Mason: When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.[1]

George Mason: “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a Free State…”

Alexander Hamilton Federalist paper #29: There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?

Alexander Hamilton (Fed papers 184-188): “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”[2]

Rep. Elbridge Gerry (of Massachusetts 1789): “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins…”

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Richard Henry (Light Horse Harry) Lee in his Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788): “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

James Madison: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”[3]

James Madison: “The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”

Thomas Jefferson: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.”

Thomas Jefferson: “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every Free State.”

Militia act of 1792: “…each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…”

Quotes by Tench Coxe (1755-1824 American political economist):

1) “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

2) “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them”

3) ”Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

The US District Courts and the SCOTUS cases that were closer to the time of the Founding Fathers recognized these truths.

In Nunn v. State [Georgia][7],, the Georgia Supreme Court not only recognized that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right, but also applied that right to the states:

“It is true, that these adjudications are all made on clauses in the State Constitutions; but these instruments confer no new rights on the people which did not belong to them before. When, I would ask, did any legislative body in the Union have the right to deny to its citizens the privilege of keeping and bearing arms in defense of themselves and their country?? The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State Governments—nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning… [D]oes it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures…. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, it is competent for the General Assembly to take way this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defense? … The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of free State.”

The US supreme court decided in Presser v. Illinois[8] that:

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

In Dred Scott v. Sandford[9] the Supreme Court considered whether a freed Negro was to be considered a citizen, and therefore whether he had the right to maintain a lawsuit in the U.S. courts. The Court held that such a person could not be considered a citizen, and reasoned that if he were, he would be entitled to all the rights of a citizen:

“[Persons] who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union [have] the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased . . . full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”- Id. at 417.

In U.S. v. Cruikshank[10] the Court recognized that the right is an individual right, but held that it was a limit on the power of the federal government and not the states:

“The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

The SCOTUS also upheld the National Firearms Act in the 1939 Miller case because a double-barrel sawed-off Savage model hunting-shotgun was:

“…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”

Attempting to say the 2nd amendment allows for the banning of militia weaponry and equipment (which is what paramilitary arms and standard capacity magazines are) is a losing argument.
In US vs Heller, Scalia defers to both Presser vs Illinois and US vs Miller to define who comprises the militia (hint: it's not the National Guard), and what weapons are protected (paramilitary arms used for the common defense).
Hunting and Sporting weapons are not protected due to these court cases so the ONLY weapons/arms left that cannot be infringed upon are paramilitary weapons. Unfortunately the activist judges, and gun-prohibitionists have muddied the waters so much as to have turned the issue into a quagmire.

All that needs to happen to correct this situation is for all the bans to be either repealed or declared unconstitutional (while keeping certain weapons under the NFA), and a requirement be made that all members of the reserve/unorganized militia be forced to join the CMP or a proper Civil Defense Corps (that trains once a month) to purchase said arms and equipment.

I'll say this, until the 1980s 50% of all house holds had firearms, in the last census 30% of all house holds had firearms. These means less people have guns but this stuff is going up, obviously something has changed with people. We can blame the FBI or NRA or whatever it doesn't change the fact something fundamentally has changed in this world. Until we fix what is wrong this will never stop even if you ban all guns

If we want to make a correlative argument using % of gun owners, you're actually speaking in favor of reducing guns. There is research to suggest that more guns means more violence, but an important note is that the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by hand guns hence the importance of background checks remains. Getting rid of assault weapons aka semi automatics though would reduce the effectiveness of these mass shootings. Take a look at this:

Other studies confirm more permissive gun laws do, indeed, lead to more crime. A Stanford study, for example, found that right-to-carry laws increased the rate of aggravated assault by 8 percent. Similarly, a 2013 Center for American Progress report found that “the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high — 104 percent higher — than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.” (Disclosure: ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news site housed at the Center for American Progress.)

Another factor worth considering is that more guns won’t simply lead to more homicides, they will also result in more suicides. As economist Alex Tabarrok and PhD student Justin Briggs determined in a 2013 study, a “1% increase in the household gun ownership rate, leads to a .5 to .9% increase in suicides.”

And this whole idea of arming teachers is stupid. Talk to actual military people. Most will tell you that giving untrained professionals this responsibility is ridiculous. Our so called trained professionals can't even get the job done as we saw in this school shooting and now we're going to have Rambo style teachers saving the day? This also causes confusion for swatting and in school environments were emotions are often running high it seems like a particularly bad idea to involve guns in this environment. No teachers support that.

The link leads to a study that mentally ill people aren't prone to more violence, rather the opposite is the case. Yes this includes people who use SSRI. In terms of mass shootings, all of them used guns. By the same logic, they are just as much a problem. Improving the medical system is nice and well but as long as it's possible to easily acquire a firearm at your leisure the tragedies will keep continuing.

As for US vs Heller, Scalia also notes that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." This is far away from the pro-gun stance that the second amendment is a multi-purpose shield against any and all regulations.

My view, keep them legal, keep them traceable, to help keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Quote:

If we want to make a correlative argument using % of gun owners, you're actually speaking in favor of reducing guns. There is research to suggest that more guns means more violence, but an important note is that the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by hand guns hence the importance of background checks remains. Getting rid of assault weapons aka semi automatics though would reduce the effectiveness of these mass shootings. Take a look at this:

There is also research that illustrates that more guns or less guns does not have any effect at ALL.
In fact, if one looks at homicide rates of the two largest states in the United States in terms of population (Texas and California) you find that they have had a nearly identical homicide rate per 100,000 and for over a decade yet California has considerably more gun control (and has for over a decade) compared to Texas (current rate for both is 4.8 per 100,000).
As of 2016 (last completed year of available data) Texas had 1459 murders, 1066 by firearms, whereas California had 1930 homicides 1368 by firearm.

If you go back through the FBI data year by year to the year 2000 (for Texas the rate per 100,000 was 5.9, for California it was 6.1), this trend stays the same despite the fact that gun laws, gun ownership, and concealed and open carry laws have changed significantly.
Ultimately what the FBI data shows is that both sides are totally wrong.
More LEGAL guns do not effect crime anymore than less LEGAL guns do.
Therefore it comes down to a matter of the right to have arms and so long as the 2nd amendment and article 1, section 8, clause 15 exists, there is no justification for bans.

Professor Gary Kleck did a study on the claims of both John Lott's work and David Hemmenway's work and found them both to be bias and deeply flawed. Kleck concluded:

These violence reducing-effects of guns in the hands of victims may roughly cancel out the violence-increasing effects of guns in the hands of offenders, resulting in a near-zero net effect on homicide rate

So while more guns do not mean less crime, more guns also does mean more crime. The issue isn't that simplistic and thus there are other factors outside of mere legal gun ownership which effect homicide rates which in turn means gun control is a failure in the United States in terms of bans.
Background checks (when Law Enforcement does their job) do work with acceptable percentages of effectiveness. They need to be expanded to mental health and SSRI use to further that effectiveness.

Quote:

And this whole idea of arming teachers is stupid. Talk to actual military people. Most will tell you that giving untrained professionals this responsibility is ridiculous. Our so called trained professionals can't even get the job done as we saw in this school shooting and now we're going to have Rambo style teachers saving the day? This also causes confusion for swatting and in school environments were emotions are often running high it seems like a particularly bad idea to involve guns in this environment. No teachers support that.

I am an actual military person (former USAF, 2nd MS, Thermo Nuclear Weapons Specialist) and I view arming teachers as stupid, but having armed security as an excellent idea.
We've seen that when police actually do their job, they can in fact stop these mass shootings if they are on scene.

However, that is only one part of formulating a solution. The next part has to be barring anyone on SSRIs from owning a gun with a 1-year detox (or whatever is deemed a suitable period of time) before they can purchase a weapon again. Too many of these mass shooters have been on SSRIs (not all of them have, but most of them have): Steven Paddock (Las Vegaz) was on Diazepam, Devin Kelly was on Prozac (or a generic version), Adam Lanza was on Celenx, Eric Harris was on Zoloft, and this latest shooter is also reported to have been on an anti-depressant drug.

Hear that everyone? It's now fanatical to think that civilians should not have access to paramilitary weaponry. And any legislation at all is fanatical.

Hear?
You mean read.
Your hyperbole on this issue doesn't help the conversation, especially when you are strawmanning what I said.
I didn't say that all legislation is fanatical and everyone here can go back and read that.
I said worthless gun and magazine bans are fanatical at this point because they DO NOT WORK and the 1994-2004 ban proved that.
It is as bad as those that think they need a a dangerous weapon like sawed-off double-barrel shotgun, or an unusual weapon like a palm-pistol because it is their right when it is not due to the fact that the SCOTUS has defined what arms the 2nd amendment protects in both US vs Miller: "…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”; and DC vs Heller which uses US vs Miller as the basis for its decision: ". Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
The only weapons at this time in history which are protected by these SCOTUS decisions are in fact paramilitary arms and standard capacity magazines. Gun-prohibitionists and gun-free-for-all types BOTH hate this fact and refute it for their own reasons.

Homicide and violent crime went down by an estimated 49% during and AFTER the 1994 ban which shows it had no effect on violent crime/homicide and manslaughter in general.

The Chicago Tribune did a surprisingly level-headed piece on this issue on the 18th of this month.
Steve Chapman lays out the reality of this situation and the article is well worth the read because he sanitizes any emotion from the issue and looks at it objectively.

"A 2013 study of the 1994 law for the National Institute of Justice said, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” It also said, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

He hits the proverbial nail on the head when he admits:
"Yes, it might make a difference if the United States emulated Australia by outlawing certain guns and requiring owners to surrender them. Constitutional issues aside, that sort of law couldn’t be passed here — or enforced. It belongs in the realm of fantasy."

Looking back over the last 30-years we can see that what did have an effect on violent crime was background checks, better forensic techniques, more police officers, and better TRACKING of firearm serial numbers in a national computer database.
Banning weapons of any kind just puts them into the Black Market, and thus will undermine the ATF's ability to keep track of them.
I for one don't want that.
The legislation I have already contacted both my senators and my representatives about is the barring of persons on SSRIs from having a firearm while taking those drugs and the accompanying 1-year detox period after they go off said SSRIs.
Also, the expansion of background checks to include people with mental health issues that are ALSO on SSRIs (mental illness should not be the only factor).
Even Democratic Senator Michael Bennett was receptive to this idea as he told me via email this morning (or his aid that wrote the email).
Both are veteran senators that understand that emotion makes for bad policy and neither is willing to realistically entertain any kind of outlawing these weapons for different reasons.
If any ban were to be passed it would be purely cosmetic (bayonet lug, pistol grip, the same worthless nonsense at the 1994 ban). Even if said weapons were required to only accept low-capacity magazines (anything less than 20-rounds for rifle or 15-rounds for pistol), the receivers would be machined to accept standard capacity magazines (15-30 rounds) as many were during the first ban.
The arguments being used to try and justify these obsolete bans are not new. Anybody older than 40-years (like me) has probably read, heard, or seen them before and knows that the promises of the bans ending these mass shootings were empty and simply false.

Therefore, many of us who supported the 1994 ban now oppose any new bans because we understand that you do not infringe on other people's rights simply to make yourself feel good.
Conservatives did that with gays and now Progressives want to do that with guns.
Both sides really piss me off because they use excuses to try and justify their total disregard for each other and their lack of respect.
People die from guns, people die from cars, people die from bad sexual choices, people die from smoking, people die from texting.

By the logic used by gun-prohibitionists we should outlaw cell phones because people do not obey the anti-texting-while-driving laws.

It's ridiculous to try and hold people's hands and watch their every move because they might break the law.
We saw the failure of that type of thinking with Prohibition of alcohol, Prohibition of drugs, and now Prohibition of guns in places like Chicago, and Washington DC. The popular myth that it is the surrounding areas that are responsible for the violent crime rates due to guns being smuggled in is nonsense since the surrounding areas do not have the same violent crime problems even though they have fewer restrictions on firearms.
Viewing all this data, if one is unemotional and objective about it, one sees that in the United States, the only legislation that will work is that which upholds the 2nd amendment's protection of the right to these weapons (whether real or perceived is irrelevant), while at the same time weeds out those who are not "abled-bodied" which includes both mental and legal fitness.
So yes, anybody pushing for a new "assault weapon and magazine" ban is a fanatic.